Yes, shooters have been done to death. But ... they're not going away. Modern shooters that mimic the old school, very Doom-like experience are still quite successful (provided they are well done). Games like Prodeus, Hedon, Ion Fury and even the Half-Life remake, Black Mesa, remain very popular games. I tend to enjoy FPS games a lot, myself, and tend to look for them when I want to have a more arcade-like experience (but in 3D) and when I don't want to think a lot, but want to just blast things. FPS games are not going away. And, especially in the light of their recent revival (or perhaps 'surge' is a better word), they are as popular as ever. If nothing else, they are a selection, a type of game among many types. Therefore, while shooter games have been done to death (beating a dead horse, as you say), good ones ... truly good ones ... are harder to find. But those good ones? They are gold and people like me, who enjoy shooters are actively on the look out for more of them, for new ones.

I still like Dungeon crawler type games . Doom and Quake were my favorites . Thank you John Carmack ..

Lance

I broke my teeth on games like dungeon master, bards tale and black crypt, and they're still my favourite genre of games, which is why I am so excited teabone is working on one.

GG takes work. You can treat it like a game that lets you edit maps, or you can get in there and treat it like a proper game engine (be creative). It's royalty free, no-nonsense, and developed by some pretty great people even if they don't have the biggest team. I'm also pretty happy with the inspiring workflow GG offers.

Nope they will always be played, but i hope that you've read the message behind the words.
In the end it is not the graphical bling bling which sells a game but the fun which it provides, playability and stability.
My brother and his son are also huge fans of survival/shooting games, but mostly they play online with other people around the world.

Did you read the message in my words (not behind them, but clearly implied)? I never once mentioned "graphical bling bling", but I did state that "good ones" (shooters) are harder to find. In fact, when it comes to "graphical bling bling", did you even pay any attention to the actual games I'd referenced? One of them, Hedon, tries to look like the old Doom games. Ion Fury does, too. For both of those games, it's not about "graphical bling bling", but about a call to nostalgia. So, my OP was not about "graphical bling bling" at all. In this, we are in agreement.

I should have looked them up, i'm not familiar with those titles.

Needles to say that i'm not such a great fan of shooters.

One thing to note about high-end graphics in a game engine - they allow you to move in any direction. In other words, if you want to make a game that looks more realistic, you can. If you want to make a game with stylized graphics, you can. If you want to create a game that looks like a pixelated game from the early 90s, you can. But if a the graphics of a game engine are limited, then the developer is limited, too. So, having great graphics in MAX should allow developers more freedom to develop the game they want with the look they want. It's not a bad thing to have high graphics capabilities.

Agree with Argent_Arts here.

Max has incredible graphics and we are going to see some truly amazing games as a result.

Gameplay, AI and pathfinding are all being worked on this year but graphics is already a big tick in the box for Max.

max will not be stable and useful to produce some real games unitl Q2 2022 i suppose...

You don't know that. None of us do. It may never be stable and useful to produce real games. Or it might be very stable and quite capable and it might be sooner than we think. We just don't know. So, it's pretty useless to speculate at this point. We'll have a slightly better idea once the next beta is released.

@Earthling45: Interesting perspective and very unlike my own. Keeps things fresh
A few thoughts:
1. The likelihood of a small, one man indie game to ever truly sell well or let alone have a fan base is incredibly slim. The vast majority never reach that status whatsoever and I don't think its something many who make them are after.
2. GG and GGMax aren't intended as commercial engines that deliver a product to be played by a large amount of people... they are and always have been hobbyist products. As you said, anyone really interested in assembling a commercial product with a certain amount of technical reliability to it should look into other engines. Not to say that max shouldn't be reliable, just stating that its a bad choice for anything that is conceived as a product to be sold from the get go.
3. I can understand that you have a certain distaste for shooter games, sure... however, as a result you seem to not know too much about them. Its the most popular genre, followed by role playing games which are also often set in first person view.... and games within that genre offer far more than just shooting. Its far more likely to get people to try out an unknown, obscure FPS game than another genre in my experience, even if the market for a shooter is more saturated than say for a driving or point-and-click adventure game.
Among its titles are games with the most engrossing worlds and story lines as well as polished gameplay. RTS, Adventure or Puzzle games are a bit more niche in broad market appeal, since that is what you have voiced interest in.
4. There are numerous single player games being made. The trend that every big budget title needs a multiplayer slapped on has been abandoned in the late 2000s (thankfully). Multiplayer is popular but tends to be its own genre seperate from solo experiences. There is no need to offer multiplayer service, and doing so as a hobby dev is usually fruitless endeavour for many reasons.

Because if you have difficult areas in your game where the player may die multiple times, then that means they have to return to the loading screen every time they die. Sure it doesn't effect the challenge of the game itself. Lets say a dev creates a fair yet difficult level, there could be multiple spots where the player may die multiple times. So if the loading screen is 2 minutes you could be looking at upwards of 10+ minutes. Or how about a challenging boss fight that takes the player 30 seconds to walk to the boss room, and the whole fight is sub 5 minutes yet they maybe die 4-5 times before they really start to understand the fight.
Think of it as if you were the player too... it would become torment.

The other problem, and this has gotten better over time but still very real, is that the game could very well crash on the loading screen. Using ALT-TAB while on a loading screen will almost certainly proc the .exe has stopped working. Also loading the same level multiple times can produce really strange bugs. Try saving your game and loading the same save spot 5 times in a row, it doesn't always cause issues, but it does a lot of the time.
So combine all these factors, and maybe it's just me, but I feel a nagging sensation in the back of my head when I'm working on a level.
"Maybe I should remove these enemies here, they might kill the player. And this level already takes to long to load"
"I'll put invisible walls where the player could fall off and die, avoiding them having to go back to the loading screen."
Things like that. I dunno like I said maybe that is just me though.

That is true, so I always recommend to have checkpoints. In GG and FPSC; that means that the map will not be loaded twice.
In FPSC, loading the level again after you die might crash the game, in GG, it takes far too long and will make the player get disgruntled with the game quickly. Both are flaws that should be addressed in max way before anything else but I have my doubts that this will be a priority...but maybe I am wrong

Loading the level in the first time taking 1 to 2 minutes is still very common in games but having to do so after each death is torment for the end user.



In case you are wondering, this is GG's downright broken memory management overloading the available ram. One of the main flaws in GG and FPSC, preventing any larger/functional games to be made.



No, you could not be more correct!



-Wolf

GG can do many FP genres, such as adventure and platformer etc. I wouldn't be disappointed from a genre perspective, you're still supposed to code things yourself if you want to use GG as more than an FPSC creator type game engine. You can say that's not cool, but GG isn't going to make every kind of game under the sun without coding experience necessary. I don't think it ever sold us on that. It'll do a basic FPS and FP Adventure game out of the box without coding -- anything more is supposed to be fun for you to figure out.

@Wolf

Let me first say that there was and is no intention to offend anyone with what i wrote. I regard Protascope as a creative outlier compared to other games made with GG.
That is not to say that other games weren't good, i've enjoyed the games you have made and games which other members have made.
I just think it is a missed opportunity if Max is limited to shooting games.

I have to disagree with you on the 'fanbase', we can't know what someone will create with Max or is creating with Classic.
A game from the nineties like 'shoot em up' should be absolutely possible and provides the players with the challenge to get a higher score.
Simple but it can be hours of fun for friends and family.

@Earthling45: Oh sorry, I didn't mean to seem disgruntled at all, I am actually with you! GG started as FPSCR, with somewhat decent gunplay but otherwise barren in features that I have always hoped they would eventually add. However, they then shifted focus to make it an all purpose engine without ever, even remotely, fleshing out top down or third person view functionalities. In the end, GG isn't really suited for any genre so I was always hoping it would do one thing, but one thing well.

GG max should have the ability for people to make other games well... a jump and run for example with good third person controls is something we perfected in the 90s and isn't too much to ask

I also really like what synchromesh did with protascope, its a very nice idea using what GG has to offer and making a lot with it.

When you said fan base, I immediately thought of a large active community like you have for fallout or half life which I just don't see happen for a GG game... but a small dedicated group of people that enjoy an indie game? Sure.



-Wolf

Stability needs to be there, too. We can make games all day with GG, but GG cant be an engine that makes our work not lead to a stable release. That makes GG a waste of time for everyone involved. We shouldnt have to stop a project and change engines just due to stability.

Could we make a 90s game on GG? Not sure, is GG stable enough?

Yes, it is stable enough.

In fact, let me give it a go in the next few days, see how far i come without scripting and using stock.
I'll post the result here in this forum for all to try.

Yeah. Yep. I don't play shooter games, therefore I'm not good at them,
therefore I don't play! I play Fortnite maybe once a week if I'm bored,
but can never find good loot or see the enemy in time!

If GGjr is good for 90's games, will GGMix be good to replicate Xbox 360?
Anyhow I noticed Alan Wake on Xbox gamepass, so downloaded it for my son
(I prefer to watch). And as soon as it started I thought-- gee is this a GG game?!
It has a lot of cut-scene story-line work, maybe more than typical of most?
But all the cut scene animations aside--- this title took 5 years!
I think GGMix could perhaps support a simplified version of it-- with of course
a vigorous effort?
http://www.alanwake.com/
The Steam page does a better job of showing it...
https://store.steampowered.com/app/108710/Alan_Wake/

I'm using GG to make a game that's not exactly in the genre of FPS, and so I'm not really worried about TGC continuing to make GG an up-to-date FPSC by adding better FPS mechanics. GG's FPS mechanics are dated but still good enough for producing a modern game. However, since you still need to create your own game within GG, you should end up making a game with fun gameplay anyways.

The criticism that "GG's gameplay isn't good enough anymore for a complete finished game" shouldn't be TGC's fault, since they're making a game engine now. They COULD modernize it, but since it's your game it's also something YOU could do. How is TGC supposed to know how you want your game to play? If we are citing a generic 'modern FPS' gameplay that TGC should mimic, then I'd argue it's not really a passionate issue.

It's better the way TGC did it - they have a simple skeleton in place for gameplay, and not too many bells and whistles going on that we have to manually remove to start from scratch.

Just because the game has, for example, a jetpack by default doesn't mean you can complain to TGC that it's default controls aren't what you want. You're still supposed to make your own game

I fall into these traps too, then I remember what TGC intends GG to be and it, more or less, fits that bill. I just wish I could start working in GG Max now, I'm a busy man.

GG has great skeletal components, so we can start building a game concept that WORKS right away. However, it's still our job to create a unique game for game-playing audiences. This includes making the game original and putting the effort in to make it our own. So, no matter what TGC add as default features, it's still our job as creators to focus on sharing what we make - this means putting the work either way, no matter that TGC does. It's more important they make a solid engine that allows us to be creative.

I invested in GG because it's a building experience I jive with, is an underdog, hasn't been really proven, and is royalty free (to me, a priceless quality).

That's why it looked so bad, when they released Alan Wake for the consoles originally, consoles just weren't able to come even close to PC's, so they had to really dumb the graphics down, you should see a comparison of Xbox to PC for Alan Wake, it's like a completely different game. It also depends on the version you have, in 2014 they updated the console graphics considerably with a new edition.





GG Max already blows the XBox 360 out of the water with regards to graphics quality and it's not fully implemented yet.

Ok, it doesn't seem that stable.

At first i'm unable to use the texture 'concretelight' because no normal exist? after adding a normal and adding mipmaps it was selectable as a texture for EBE.
Then i'm faced with a bug that in windowed mode i cant use the mouse to face a different direction (RMB) and after a bit of work it crashes without notion so i'm done again for now.

Are you guys really comparing graphics from a console that came out in 2005, to what GG Max should be able to produce in 2022-2023 when your game is out?
Is that the standard?
Anyway I do agree that gameplay mechanics is what makes a game fun. Not the eye candy, but the eye candy brings the players. As such...it seems eye candy brought people to GG Max.
I'm an old user here Darkbasic but have bought into the GG Max sales pitch. However, I agree with some posts here. I was all excited to have an easier faster game engine to play with to make some First Person - note not necessarily First Person SHOOTER games with. The graphic capabilities from Wicked Engine look great. LUA scripting, wow that's cool. So I forked out money.

Then I have watched weekly videos about the UI - sometimes literally a few icons added or changed and showing Wicked engine features on graphics or a zombie or new level added. I don't think the majority cares one bit about the demo level.
Then when asking about other features "Oh watching the clock if there is time for another question...." replies are getting old. No offence intended to Lee but this is a client telling you what they perceive. I get the feeling is that TGC has an air off... "ah these users don't really know what they are talking about" and continues to undermine the userbase's intelligence by explaining how the software development process works. Yet looking at the track record has not been stellar for TGC. Either that or TGC are OK with over-promising and under-delivering as a business model. Con a few thousand to buy your product, shovel some assets to those ones and then drop the application and rinse and repeat. I really hope - and give the benefit of the doubt - that it's not the case.

I look at Wolf's post at the top and you say that we should not expect certain reliability out of GG Max and should rather go use Unity or Unreal if we do. Are you being serious?
Many people don't just want to mess around with GG max all day and post screenshots. I reckon the majority would actually want to produce something standalone, whether commercially or not and be proud of it. Pretty screenshots don't mean a lot.

I sincerely hope that we can get a good product that we can make some good games and that the community can be proud to release a game made with GG Max. Otherwise what the hell is the point for the game devs other than messing around as hobbyist. If so, then TGC should change the marketing of the engine asap as not to dupe more people. Not saying this is the case but if this is just going to be a UI skin hooked up to another graphics engine then users have been duped. Many people here seem to sit with Godot, Lumberyard, Unity, Unreal hoping that maybe GG Max can be that easier quicker tool to use. That is an awesome position to be in TGC.

Please take this post as coming from a paying customer who wants to see GG Max succeed so he can also develop game ideas easily as promised, and not just "another user who doesn't know how development works".

In my humble opinion:
Do's:
Make GG Max stable not just in the editor but on standalone.
Expose as much of Wicked Engine as possible via the interface.
Decide what you want to deliver and communicate it clearly and honestly with the users.
Listen to the users sometimes. They want to use your product. Make it easy for them to do.

Dont's
Keep harping on about the UI even if there is no other progress made. Then rather chat about something else.
Don't dodge difficult questions with the excuse of time and then answer a question that has been answered before.
Advertise something that GG Max will not be.

So yeah as the OP I'm also a bit disappointed but I am trying to stay optimistic. I think it was a very good idea to delay and fix and add the logic system rather than release. Release it when it's ready.
Btw the fact that people don't post doesn't mean they are not looking and reading.

@slapdash:

I think that was as much an embellishment as people calling the GG screenshots shown on page one as looking like something from the 90s.
Also you need to factor in user skill. Sadly the vast majority of GGs user base don't know a lot about art direction or graphics so their games will inevitably not look like something that came out in [current year] and with some dedication, something older looking but still decent can be achieved. 3D world building is a complex amalgamate of many skills, the engine has less to do with that than many people assume.



As you said, the track record of the past, oh, 15 years seems like this isn't terribly unrealistic. Of course we all can hope that GGmax might end up being that lightning in a bottle but your concerns and observations are warranted.



Dead serious.
As you said, track record. FPSC/FPSCR and then GG all had the same reliability issues.... so its not unreasonable to assume that GGMax will adopt this DNA.
If you or anyone else wants to make something larger or commercial, adopting a fledgling engine that hasn't even been released yet is just not good practice. In the end, I want people to make games, thats what we are here for and I can only recommend using proven software over software that has proven to be downright broken when it comes to numerous features even after years of being developed. I have given GGClassic the benefit of the doubt for years and tried several times to do something semi-decent with it... it just didn't work out for me and many people like me. Those pretty screenshots you mentioned where all once game ideas someone tried to bring to life.

Makes sense what you say Wolf and I guess if one looks at it that way it is true.
Also reading that GG Classic's code is "tethered to GameGuru Max" doesn't help the cause.

I agree that the way the Mods discount GG is interesting. Wolf's response just doubles down. Saying "But it's logical to say 'dont use GG'" doesn't make us wrong when we say it's strange when any product's community mod team speaks that way.

After reading about GGMAX going to be using the same basic code from GGC has me worried now. As it is extremely hard to create a fully playable standalone game with GGC right now. I do not understand why you would use a AAA open source game engine like WICKED, but keep using the same code from GGC that had memory issues and caused a lot of problems to create standalone games. How many games have been created with GGC and have sold or made more than $100,000 or £74000 or close to that? As a business or game developer you will need to pay PR team artists and designers and voice actors and so on... or have a publisher do this for you.

Anyways I do hope that GGMAX does do better than GGC as I have followed TGC for many years now and can see potential in their ideas.

Please keep to FPS game for now then begin to adopt other game mechanics, genres or types when the product is able to effectively create a standalone game easily without causing problems. As I believe this was one of the biggest problems with GGC, you kept changing game mechanics, genres or types part way through development instead of completing the basic framework first. Please try to use some of the Wicked Engine code and functions rather than relying on the old GGC code. I think we are all willing to wait for GGMAX being useable and bring all our ideas to life.

I am very hopeful of a good product here and do like some of the features, not all so far.

Edited for typo's, sorry if i did not get them all, was in a rush.

I am not disappointed more expectant of a better product as it hasn't even been released yet. Anything where TGC have stated there will be no plans or no changes, will most likely use original GGC code, but that's assumption. Anything new , will be using 100% c++ new code. To be honest I would scrap the GGC code and work from the bottom up. Let's see all the memory leak/standalone issues fixed.

"Are you guys really comparing graphics from a console that came out in 2005, to what GG Max should be able to produce in 2022-2023 when your game is out?
Is that the standard?"

"GG Max already blows the XBox 360 out of the water with regards to graphics quality"
--- Fer sure, no doubt. Yeah, that was me, lol. But really if you read the next line-- I compared GGjr to XBox 360. I don't have GGMAX. I am waiting on at least something reasonable to test!! Anyhow, if the engine is higher, it can mimick anything lower easily-- that the innuendo.

Let's rename --First Release-- GGMix! lol I call it that because we want to see further stock implemented genres of games capability via built in menus-- as Lee has explained. This first rendition that is currently under development could be called GGMix, it would be as compatible with GGjr as possible, (no extra steps than currently underway), and it could come out in a couple months. (Nerdy sounding name?-- I know.) TGC spent several years writing the code base, it's not awful, it seems to mostly be the memory allocation.

"GGMAX!" with the "!" included could be the entire, full fledged re-written strictly C++ engine with Wicked strapped tightly to it in all it's glory. How about that? There would be two products (I have no qualms at all about this development strategy-- just don't abuse it like it seems RPG Maker wants to!) I suspect MAX! would take more than a year, maybe two to redo?

The mods are all volunteers, they are not paid and are not required to support the product itself, only the community as a whole. Now you'd think most of the mods here only got their mod status by being big advocates of the software or luminaries of indie game development, and indeed many of them started off that way! But sadly after so many years, many of them have become jaded and are moving on to other things, and other game engines.

AE

Personally the things I like about GG are related to the simple interface and relatively easy way to test stuff.

I've tried all the other engines, even some that most people around here have never heard of (Unigine for example) and they all fail in that regard, I hate having to drill down into submenus or learn hundreds of shortcut keys just to do simple things and my worry having seen the MAX UI changes is that that is exactly where MAX is headed!

"simple interface and relatively easy way to test stuff."

Certainly. I have tried Unity, Unreal, Godot, Lumberyard ( CryEngine wouldn't even install on my computer-- ) I put some terrain and trees down in them, but what are all those UI boxes? Each one more UI spaghetti and where do you even start?! I'm a simple, big button, non - ambiguous UI guy. That's why I close Blender after looking at it for a minute.
This was why I googled "Easy Game Maker", and up popped a GG video which did a brief overview-- and I was like Really?! You mean this really exists?! Let's go.

I enjoy with both.
GG was the school and GGMax will be the university, learning continue, that's right.

Yeah, but I want to stay in the playground.

Sometimes, though, simplicity can get in the way and actually make things more difficult. It can be limiting. All those controls and things in Unity and Unreal? Most of the time you don't need to pay attention to them. They are only there for the times that you do. So, for the most part, you can go about just putting together your levels, adding your lights, and adjusting things the way you want, all without having to do things much differently than you would in GameGuru (except snapping is tons better in the other programs).

I have fun playing in GameGuru, sure. But if I want to do something a bit more serious, it's time to head over to one of the other engines.

Oh, Unigine? Yeah, I've looked at that ... and S2 ... and Manu ... and 001 GameCreator ... and Xenko (now Stride) ... and Flax (which is actually quite nice) ... and Falco3D ... and, of course Unity and Unreal ... and a zillion others. GameGuru is unique among them, but it's ease of use can actually make some aspects of game creation more difficult.

I have also used many engines and creators with varying levels of success since the GarageGames days with Torque.
GG Max promised ease and features that I want for an idea I have that it technically won't take me too long to do if things work as its a First-Person game idea...however now I wonder if I should just go with what I know. Unity and add the Game Creator addon or use Playmaker. I have used both to do 3rd person view games and they are powerful. However, I do get what AmenMoses says. Sometimes a program or app just has a workflow that gels with you and that's simple enough to just get on with it in a logical workflow.

I guess I'll see if GG Max has this but I thought that there will be more new features added. I think at least in Lee's video yesterday he spoke about the "P" word feature and I am hoping that that means Physics. He spoke about the particle editor as well that seems nice if they can integrate it. I also find that in developing games that the necessity of having to come up with ideas to get around limitations sometimes helps a game be unique or interesting. However, usually core things are in place and in place to a really smooth degree in engines or game makers where I find this to be the case.

But again, all these little things aren't going to help one bit if the Standalone build crasher or has memory leaks and stuff that is in GG Classic apparently. I might load that up as I got it at one point from a bundle or something (Steam account).
But I mean are this ever going to be fixed if you guys are still complaining about it?

I also think being able to import Character's exported in FBX from Mixamo, Daz3D, iClone would be very important for GameGuru users. I hope this could make it to a list and get tested.

here's a question that will throw a spanner in the works and I will be flamed but I don't care. How comes users hop from one engine to another. Is it because they are looking for features that don't exist in one but do in another or is it because they know they will never make a full game in any of the engines that really meet their expectations in terms of features or something else e.g. just for the hell of gaining some experience in each one? Or is it because no-one really wants to attempt programming and want an engine to be so superior that you can just press a button and voila , game built all done with no effort put in? Just curious, let the flame throwers being

I can't answers for others reasoning but I can answer mine.

Some engines don't support 2D really well, others don't support 3D. So when you are doing a project and you are doing a 2D project you won't really be attempting it in GameGuru or the like. So you look for another engine, this exploration will take you through a few different engines and tools perhaps untill you reach one that works for you. You might find something that works for you and then the devs abandon it...or..there are build issues or bugs that don't get resolved by the developers. Coding in C++ that some engines require is not something I'm great at and I suspect many many other users, so yeah I at least always looks to ones that will give me an easier time coding and creating than deep diving into the guts of thousands of lines of C++ code.

Most of all I love technology so I often look at potentially useful and exciting tool that comes out, see how things work and how it feels to use. It doesn't mean I am trying my projects that I want to take further in every single engine to know what they can and can't do easily etc. There is playing around and testing and looking and then there is working.
I am sometimes amazed at developers that build engines or products that have never looked (or they claimed to have never looked) at competing products and don't know what they can do so they assume a lot. Here it seems to me at least that TGC is pretty open-minded which needs to be given credit where credit is due.

Anyway, that's my reasoning.

Well, simply because you have to try what is out there until you find something that sticks. Only way to really find out is to try out, so it might seem that people "hop" from software to software.
I've tried a lot of tools until I found UE4 which was right for me. Someone else might feel more at home using Game Guru or Unity.



-Wolf

Why do some, like myself, try so many game engines? Simple answer (for me) - I like game engines. I find them fascinating. I like to test out things in them. I like to see what makes them different, what makes them the same. I make my living off creating 2D and 3D images for clients. Some of that income has been by making content for real-time 3D games and simulations. Each client may use a different engine. Being at least a bit familiar with each helps me to create content that can easily be brought into their engine of choice. Having several of them allows me to bring the content into the engine and test it a bit before sending it off to the client. For example, some engines handle parallax occlusion mapping differently than others (how you set up the material, etc.) and some just don't have it at all. It's good to know these things before creating an asset for a particular engine.

But, for me, it's more than that. Like I said above, I find 3D game engines fascinating. I am (slowly) working on my own project, in my own time, in another engine. But I also like the IDEA of GameGuru. I've long thought that it should be possible to create an "easy game maker" system for 3D games, but no one has really created one yet. A few have come close. And you know what? For $25 I gladly invested in Max if for no other reason than to play with it when it's finally released. So, not only do I get to work in real-time 3D on occasion, I also play in it. For me, it's fun.

I never had tried any engine other than TGC engines (FPSC, Reloaded, Gameguru, GGMax)., and the only reason is that I know (and I don't need to try to know it) then the engine I love most have a long learning curve, this mean a lot of time to dedicate to, time than I don't have.
I really don't have a lot of time just to know how to realize a level in ue4 or unity, when in GG or GGMax this is just a matter of a few minutes.
As I said before I need fun with this I'm doing and TGC engines give me that fun. IMHO

Also, the personal reasons might help to choose the engine, at least in my case if I choose UE4 or Unity, most likely I'm going to be ready to make my own game in the retirement house. LOL

Maybe I'm wrong but at least for me one man is not capable to make "The last of us" by himself, if you have patience enough you can see a lot of people that work on that game when the credits coming, that fact just let me the option of work for one of that huge company if I'm well ready and a lucky man. Don't talk about the money need it because I'm talking about all the work 1 AAA game implies.

And for sake of being clear, this is a very good option, but I have not the necessary time to do so.

So yes, TGC engines fit my needs, my expectations, and teaching a lot to me as well as this wonderful community.

Not everyone wants to make a game like that. Some like simpler games (both to make them and to play them). There is a market for all kinds of games. Else, they would all be "The Last of Us" clones.





Obviously, you can't know that since, according to your own words, you've never even tried any other engines than the ones produced by TGC.

Despite how overwhelming the editors for both Unity and Unreal can appear, they are actually pretty simple to use. As I'd stated previously, just because a ton of options are there does not mean you have to use all of them all of the time. In fact, you may find, based on your project, that you need very few of them. Personally, I find putting together a level and lighting it in Unreal to be much, much simpler than trying to do the same in GameGuru. So, yeah, to each their own.

@ Argent_Arts
I know you are right.
But after many years creating custom software for companies, computerizing fire systems in large industries, and maintaining/updating all this software for years, I decided to look for something that had nothing to do with all this, something for fun, and I decided on 3d modeling and peek a bit of the nose in creating video games, and I liked it.
Unfortunately, I landed very late on the FPSC planet, because of the videos, games, forums, etc, I'm sure they were good times.

This focus on AAA isn't constructive. Constantly pointing out "You can't expect GG to do AAA" isn't helpful. It shuts down reasonable requests and sets the bar higher than what most people who buy GG are likely intending to do. Which is - not making a AAA game, just a game that they want to work.

Most of us are trying to make polished simple games with GG. It's obvious it's a strange quirky and limited engine. It's not like we don't know about unreal or unity, we aren't students in school learning about videogame programming for the first time and the teacher handed us GG for educational reasons. That's not GG's market, and treating it like an educational hobby tool makes our discussions here pointless. Using that to defend GG isn't helpful - GG needs to be developed and improve, not be defended for another 5 years because it's apologetically seen as educational software for children. It's not advertised or marketed as that, it's simply a young engine.

So I get the disappointment. What can be more disappointing is the attitude from folks when they respond to what GG is. But some stay creative, regardless. Some of us are making arcade games, some not even games at all. Some code all the weapons out of their games. Nobody know what the end user will do with GG, but if it's falling short of what you want it to be - consider doing something radical with it.

Strip it down and turn the bicycle into a unicycle if you need to.
I doubt anyone will be offended, considering both TGC and mods commonly advise developers to use other engines if they intend to share their creations publicly. So treat GG as a pseudo-abandoned engine and welcome it into your house. If you can figure out how to tame it.

Fact of the matter is that the better games the GG community can build the better GameGuru Max looks and the more customers they attract. If they can have some insight and look at what is the game creators need and want within game development reason, then GGM can perhaps do really well and attract more people to the community.

I would have to do the math, but I think with the bundles and 3rd party deals Father's Island jumped over that threshold.
However, it was much easier to achieve with FPSC than with GGC

attention is attention, also negative reviews such as those scam games on steam will sell Gameguru because apparently this engine is very easy to create a game with.
Viola, precisely what Gameguru is meant to be, easy and fun!